Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1825
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1995/09/07 PDT
HOMEBREW Digest #1825 Thu 07 September 1995
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Extra Yeast Package (Chris Strickland)
Water Treatment Concerns (Philip Hofstrand)
RE: Rajotte'sSierra Blanca (MClarke950)
Found Keg (MrMike656)
Avery label warning / Red Seal Ale ("Keith Royster")
Re: Beer labels: removing them & making them (Jack Stafford)
Comments on Zinc ("Palmer.John")
Labels/bottle fillers (dludwig)
Re: Labels (SoarMoose)
Happy Holidays Comp ("Ginger Wotring, Pharm/Phys")
RE: Lurker's Rant/Lactic Critter's (MClarke950)
Mash/Lauter-Tun design (Dave Riedel)
Empty Fermentation Lock (Tom Neary)
Re: Ringwood Yeast (Geoff Scott)
absinthe (BrianE)
Ringwood/Starters (Dan McConnell)
larger batch size/ smaller work load (Adam Rich)
Maris Otter Malt (hadleyse)
Use of starters (CGEDEN)
Re: RTP yeasts/Hops Plugs (Ken Jucks, ph # 617-496-7580)
Re: Priming bottles (Spencer W Thomas)
re: 5 Gal GOTT or the 10 gal? (The flame from your stage has now spread to the floor 06-Sep-1995 1038 -0400)
Answer Posting: One Solution (Ken Schroeder)
Poor service from St. Pats (Jay Reeves)
labels ("Gerry Nelson")
Labeling: a Summary (Victor Hugo)
Bits n pieces (Joseph.Fleming)
Poll: Open vs Closed Fermentation Practices ("Fleming, Kirk R., Capt")
transfer bottling ("David Wright")
Re: Labels (Shawn Steele)
Yeast Starters/Carboy Headspace/Dual Coil Chillers ("Fleming, Kirk R., Capt")
******************************************************************
* POLICY NOTE: Due to the incredible volume of bouncing mail,
* I am going to have to start removing addresses from the list
* that cause ongoing problems. In particular, if your mailbox
* is full or your account over quota, and this results in bounced
* mail, your address will be removed from the list after a few days.
*
* If you use a 'vacation' program, please be sure that it only
* sends a automated reply to homebrew-request *once*. If I get
* more than one, then I'll delete your address from the list.
******************************************************************
#################################################################
#
# YET ANOTHER NEW FEDERAL REGULATION: if you are UNSUBSCRIBING from the
# digest, please make sure you send your request to the same service
# provider that you sent your subscription request!!! I am now receiving
# many unsubscribe requests that do not match any address on my mailing
# list, and effective immediately I will be silently deleting such
# requests.
#
#################################################################
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS hpfcmgw!
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@hpfcmgw.fc.hp.com
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
to homebrew-request@hpfcmgw.fc.hp.com, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L@UA1VM.UA.EDU),
then you MUST unsubscribe the same way!
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen@alpha.rollanet.org
ARCHIVES:
An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer
related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at
ftp.stanford.edu. Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full
e-mail address as the password, look under the directory
/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory. AFS users can find it under
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer. If you do not have
ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail
service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service,
send an e-mail message to ftpmail@gatekeeper.dec.com with the word
"help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 19:26:20 -0400
From: cstrick@iu.net (Chris Strickland)
Subject: Extra Yeast Package
I've found my highest contributor to a bad batch of beer is a slow starting
fermentation. I have never (knock on wood) had a bad batch of beer that has
been started on sludge from a previous batch. Even after six reuses. All 3
of my 5 (out of 40 batches) of bad beer have come from slow starting
fermentations (over 2 days). The other two were from a carboy with a small
crack that I didn't notice. Another potential suspect is that 4 of my 5
batches have come during the summer, even though I keep the house cooled to
80, and the carboy wrapped in a damp towel.
Question, to speed up the fermentation start, would using two Wyeast pack to
make two starters speed up the initial fermentation start time. Currently
the first batch takes about 48 hours to start (even with a starter). I'm
thinking that two starters might take less than 24 hours. It's only $6 and
and considering I can reuse the yeast at least five more times, that's only
a $1 per batch.
Any thoughts?
- --------------
Chris Strickland
cstrick@iu.net
http://www.teg.saic.com/mote/people.html
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 13:23:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Philip Hofstrand <philiph@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Water Treatment Concerns
Greetings, All:
As a partial masher trying to establish a good working protocol for
all-grain brewing, I've been pondering how to go about treating my brewing
water effectively. The excellent contributions on water treatment by Dave
Draper and A. J. deLange have gotten my fevered little mind gloating over
the prospect of matching water profiles to appropriate styles. However,
I'm not sure how best to use this information.
Here's my main concern: procedural differences, especially regarding
sparging, are going to influence ion concentrations in the finished
product. For instance, let's assume a target volume of 5 gallons at the
end of boil. If I'm an avid sparger, and start with 9 gallons in the
kettle(!), I will have effectively increased the concentration of each ion
by 9/5, or 180%. I know this is a strong oversimplification, but I think
the basic concept is legitimate. If I'm not a sparging fan, and start with
6 gallons, I concentrate ions by 6/5, or 120%. This seems to be a very
significant difference, and should cause easily detectable differences in
the beer flavor profile. Has anyone come up with a reasonable approach to
solving this problem, or am I nitpicking?
Also, are we more concerned with concentrations during the boil, or in the
finished product? For instance, differences in SO4 concentration will
affect the perception of hop bitterness. Is this due to thermochemical
reactions in the boil, i.e. SO4 influence on alpha acid isomerization, or
does the presence of sulfate have a direct physiological effect on
bitterness perception? One could ask similar questions for each ion of
concern to brewers. These things have left me quite confused as to how to
proceed, so anything the collective brewmind of the HBD could do to help
would be most, um, helpful.
Until next time,
Phil
- --
Philip Hofstrand (philiph@u.washington.edu)
In taberna quando sumus, non curamus quid sit humus
When we are in the tavern, we spare no thought for the grave
--Carl Orff, "Carmina Burana"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 21:26:20 -0400
From: MClarke950@aol.com
Subject: RE: Rajotte'sSierra Blanca
"Pat Babcock" <pbabcock@oeonline.com> wrote:
>I just finished up Rajotte's Belgian Ale book of the classic beer
>styles series. (Yes, his writing style is tough to follow! During his
>description of "Brewing with a Belgian Brewmaster", I found it
>difficult to tell who was who and what was what. He kept switching
>from third to first person perspective w/o warning! Yaaagggghhhh!)
>Anyway, in reviewing his Sierra Blanca recipe, I noticed that the
>all-grain and extract recipes are different. I mean different beers
>entirely. The all-grain recipes call for pale malt and crystal malt,
>while the extract recipe calls for pale malt syrup, and wheat malt
>syrup. What's wrong with this picture? Any one know which way to
>turn? Should it be pale malt and _wheat_ malt?
Pat, I had a lot of problems understanding parts of Rajotte's book
too. I think the editing could have been a lot better. There is a
post on correction's to 'Belgian Ale's' in the Lambic Archives Digest.
The post was dated March 13, 1995. The following is how to retrieve
an archive from the Lambic Digest.
to: netlib@lance.colostate.edu
subject: send
send d03.95 from lambic
That's it. It should be in d03.95. The subject is Rajotte corrections.
ps I hope this helps.
Cheers,
Mike
Mike Clarke
Seattle, WA. USA
Email: MClarke950@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 20:01:52 -0400
From: MrMike656@aol.com
Subject: Found Keg
Greetings All,
I remember the "what is a legal keg" thread" from some time ago and have
no wish to restart it. But one thing was never addressed: finding kegs. I
found an abandoned big brewery keg in a public park on Labor Day afternoon.
There was nobody in the park, so it must have been sitting there a good 12
hours or so. I spoke with a friend of mine who is a beverage retailer, and he
told me that nobody really keeps track of these things. He also wasn't
especially interested in taking it off my hands, since I wasn't the one who
bought it or left a deposit on it.
So - what to do? I'd like to take the "solid citizen" route and return it
to said big name brewer. But if my local beverage distributor isn't
interested in taking it off my hands, what am I supposed to do? Mail it back?
Of course, if I can't return it, I'll just cut the top off and add to my
already well stocked brewpot collection.
Any suggestions?
Mike Maimone
"The Great Prince issues commands, founds states, vests families with fiefs.
Inferior people should not be employed."
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 18:09:04 +0500 ET
From: "Keith Royster" <N1EA471@mro.ehnr.state.nc.us>
Subject: Avery label warning / Red Seal Ale
In response to Vic Hugo's question about making beer labels Pat Maloney
responds:
> If you really must use your computer, get some sheets of Avery (or
> compatible) .75" round labels and, using any label program that includes the
> Avery template, use a small font to print out sheets of labels at a time.
I would warn here that I have found Avery labels (or any office-supply-
store-self-adhesive-type (O.S.S.S.A.T) labels) to be VERY difficult to
remove from the bottles when I'm done with 'em. The tend to have a
glossy finish that is difficult for water to penetrate to soften the glue
on the back of the label (even in an ammonia solution). Again, I will
recommend trying plain paper and whole milk as the adhesive.
And now for my quick question (actually a recipie request). I have
recently discovered Red Seal Ale and I absolutely love it! It has
replaced SNPA as my favorite pale ale. So, if any of you have or know of
a recipie that is a good approximation of it I would appreciate it if you
could pass it my way. (At $14/six-pack I can't afford to keep buying
it!) I am currently extract brewing but will be moving to all grain soon,
so either style is fine. I will do the conversions. TIA!!
+------------------------------+----------------------+
| Keith Royster, E.I.T. | The mouth of a |
| Environmental Engineer | perfectly happy man |
| NC-DEHNR / Air Quality | is filled with beer. |
| (704) 663-1699 | -Egyption Wisdom, |
| N1EA471@mro.ehnr.state.nc.us | 2200 B.C. |
+------------------------------+----------------------+
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 95 11:55:01 PDT
From: stafford@alcor.hac.com (Jack Stafford)
Subject: Re: Beer labels: removing them & making them
On Sun, 3 Sep, "Keith Royster" <N1EA471@mro.ehnr.state.nc.us> writes:
>using whole milk as an adhesive. Just brush it on the back of the label
>and stick it to your bottles. After it dries, wipe off any excess with a
>damp rag. The protiens in the milk act as an adhesive but will come loose
>easily when soaked in warm water.
Since the milk adhesive didn't work for me, I tried a different approach.
My local stationary store has "glue in a stick". It comes in a plastic
tube like ChapStik and is applied to the back of a paper label. The
glue dries in a few minutes and comes off easily with a soak in warm H20.
Jack stafford@alcor.hac.com
Costa Mesa, CA.
------------------------------
Date: 5 Sep 1995 16:09:19 U
From: "Palmer.John" <palmer@ssdgwy.mdc.com>
Subject: Comments on Zinc
Regarding Steve and Kirk's posts on Zinc,
I will say that A) Dave Miller mentions Zinc as being toxic to yeast in
relatively large quantities, B) Bodybuilders take Zinc supplements to help
prevent Tearing scars, and C) It probably is toxic in relatively large amounts.
I don't know if the lemonade in galvanized garbage cans is urban legend or not,
but I can say that if a galvanization process incorporates any Cadmium into the
melt then yes you will be dead meat. Plain zinc galvanization re. toxicity I
dont have any data on. I would avoid it myself since I dont know more about it.
John J. Palmer - Metallurgist for MDA-SSD M&P
johnj@primenet.com Huntington Beach, California
Palmer House Brewery and Smithy - www.primenet.com/~johnj/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 00:09:40 -0400
From: dludwig@atc.ameritel.net
Subject: Labels/bottle fillers
Vic asked about easy off bottle labels. A few months ago, or maybe longer,
someone suggested using milk or something like that. Anybody remember that?
I recently found a homebrew shop in Arlington, TX. 35 bucks for a rebuilt
corny keg. Almost bought one but looking for a better deal. I bought a 2.99
bottle filler, instead, which has turned out to be my best beer equipment
purchase in quite a while. The device is easy to use. Just press to fill and
release when full. You get consistant fills (although a bit on the low side)
every time. Highly recommended. Cheers!
Dave Ludwig
"From the land of pleasant living"
Southern MD
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 14:33:07 -0400
From: SoarMoose@aol.com
Subject: Re: Labels
In a message dated 95-09-05 03:01:44 EDT, you write:
>f you really must use your computer, get some sheets of Avery (or
>compatible) .75" round labels and, using any label program that includes the
>Avery template, use a small font to print out sheets of labels at a time.
Please excuse my rudeness, but I ABSOLUTELY NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER
EVER USE PRINTER LABELS!
The darned things just don't come off. Put them on once and they will be on
for the rest of the life of that bottle.
My suggestion is to use regular paper and then use the cheap, water-soluable
glue stick that you can buy in any stationary store, drug store, copy-center
or back-to-school aisle. I have done this for a while now and it works like a
charm. Best part being that it comes off in about 5 minutes of warm water
soaking leaving no residue whatsoever.
I have heard rumors of whole milk working well too, but I am satisfied with
the glue-stick method.
-Chris
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 1995 19:43:47 -0600 (CST)
From: "Ginger Wotring, Pharm/Phys" <WOTRING@SLUVCA.SLU.EDU>
Subject: Happy Holidays Comp
The St Louis Brews are pleased to announce the return of our Happy Holidays
Homebrew Competition! This is an AHA sanctioned event, using the standards
and categories provided by the AHA, with the addition of one special beer
style, Christmas Brau. This is a winter warmer/kitchen sink type beer, with
OG > 1.060, >3 malts, >4 hops, at least one adjunct. The Happy Holidays
Homebrew Competition is part of the Midwest Homebrewer of the Year challenge,
as well.
Entries are due by 5pm 29 Nov. Judging will be held on the afternoon of
Saturday 9 December, with a banquet and award ceremony following.
We welcome all entries, and urge everyone interested to come judge with
us! Please pass this information along to other brewers who may be
interested. If you are interested in visiting us, let me know. We will
have some places to stay available.
- --
Ginger Wotring, HHHC coordinator
internet: wotring@sluvca.slu.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 21:26:28 -0400
From: MClarke950@aol.com
Subject: RE: Lurker's Rant/Lactic Critter's
"Taber, Bruce" <BRUCE.TABER@NRC.CA> writes:
>I may not be a great homebrewer, but I am a great bitcher and
>complainer so..... here are my 2 cents.
<snip>
>and one thing that ticks me off is the number of great questions that
>are answered by private e-mail instead of by posting.
<snip>
>I read lots of great questions that I never see
>answers for.
Not all the questions asked, are answered. You're assuming that something
is happening offline which may (or may not) be true.
>Russell Mast asks if there is any truth to C.P.'s claim that grain husks
>have lots of lactic bugs. I WANT TO KNOW TOO !
Greg Noonan also agrees with CP. I ALSO sent this to Russell offline.
I did a sour mash a la Greg Noonan (Zurmurgy Special Issue,
the one with UK, German, USA brewing styles). It did indeed sour the
mash. I used paper test strips and it went out of the range. The
reasoning was that there is plenty of lactic critters on barley.
I mashed 1# of pale ale malt in 1.33 quarts of water and then added
additional cool water to drop the temp to around 95F. I then added
uncrushed pale barley to the mixture. The whole thing went into
a sixpack cooler. I put AL foil over the top to keep out air and
covered the cooler. In two days I did the main mash and just added
the sour mash. I entered it in a contest and one judge said it was
astringent (sp?). I don't know if it was the sour mash or my
sparging. The other 2 judges really liked it. Go figure. I have
seen some posts discounting this method, they said it was unreliable
and made some ghastly beers. All I have is my one data point to the
opposite (and the fact that Greg Noonan does this at his Vermont
Brewery.) This is all off the top of my head and may not be 100%.
Cheers,
Mike
Mike Clarke
Seattle, WA. USA
Email: MClarke950@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 1995 13:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dave Riedel <RIEDEL@ios.bc.ca>
Subject: Mash/Lauter-Tun design
Having browsed through what seems to be ~43 Mb of net-info on mash/lauter
tun designs, I am now suffering from overload. Therefore, I'm going to do
the obvious and ask for *more* information :-)
I make 5 gallon batches. Are the large rectangular coolers ok for this size
or would the 5 gallon Gott, cylindrical style be better?
(Note: I have a rectangular one already. Could it serve as a mash/lauter tun
without giving up it's day job as a cooler?)
What's better: vegetable steamer/grain bag, false bottom, copper manifold?
(Keep in mind cost as I need other items to make the move to all-grain.)
*sigh* all this information... it's enough to drive me to just buy my beer!
Dave Riedel
Victoria, BC
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 1995 07:31:19 EDT
From: uscgc2r3@ibmmail.com
Subject: Maltsters, private answers
I've received several helpful responses regarding bulk malt purchases and
several interested in getting together on one locally (Greensboro, NC). I don't
have access to Brewing Techniques at the magazine rack or at the homebrew store
but I've been told that maltsters advertise in there. Maybe someone who gets it
could forward me some names and numbers (or names and cities) of advertising
Maltsters? I'll try the library too.
Regarding private answers to public questions....I WANT TO KNOW TOO! I've been
assuming that when we don't see an answer, it's not because someone answered
privately, but because the "asker" didn't get an answer. I'd like to see answers
to just about ANY question, and others would probably like to see the answers to
the few that I'm not interested in. So, between me and any two other
subscribers, it's a safe bet that one of us will appreciate the posted reply.
I do like the idea of someone doing us all the service of compiling data
points from multiple private replies and making a nice presentation of all info
received in one issue for us. I've seen this done several times since my
subscription started just a few months ago. A replyer shouldn't expect that this
will happen though unless the requestor says it will (and then there's an
obligation to the rest of us to follow through on providing us with the
compilation). My teeth are watering while I'm trying to finish my short list of
domestic projects so that I can build the brewhaus and start incorporating some
of the good looking information that I've been gleaning. Thanks to all for some
good reading
Wallie Meisner
uscgc2r3@ibmmail.com
(800 334 9481 x-2410)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 07:34:07 -0400
From: tom.neary@peri.com (Tom Neary)
Subject: Empty Fermentation Lock
Hi all,
My Honey Wheat beer was in its first full day of fermentatio and going real
strong when I went to bed last night. I filled up the fermentation lock at
12:00 AM by 5:00 AM it was empty. I refilled the lock but it definitely wasn't
bubbling like it had a few hours before. I'm not sure how long it was empty
for but can being empty hurt the beer or kill the yeast? I had a cover on the
S-shaped lock.
thanx,
TN
Thomas Neary | tneary@peri.com 516-467-0500
Periphonics Corp. |
4000 Veterans Hwy. |
Bohemia, NY 11716 |
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 08:50:02 -0500
From: gscott@io.org (Geoff Scott)
Subject: Re: Ringwood Yeast
Anthony asks about the Ringwood yeast.
I have been told that YeastLabs A09 is the Ringwood strain. While I can't
confirm this it does have some of the same characteristics. The Ringwood
strain is very top fermenting and is usually top cropped and repitched
repeatedly by the breweries that use it. I found it funny that a guy at
Wild Goose gave a cup away since my experience asking for this yeast at
another brewery was quite different. The brewer put his guard up and said
forget it. He said that he had given his solemn pledge to Alan Pugsley not
to give any away.
regards,
Geoff Scott
gscott@io.org
Brewing page http://www.io.org/~gscott
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 95 07:50 CST
From: BrianE@anesthesia-po.anesth.uiowa.edu
Subject: absinthe
A year or so ago there was quite a discussion
here regarding wormwood/absinthe. I would
appreciate re-capturing as much of that
information as possible. Private
email is fine.
Thanks,
eddie-brian@uiowa.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 09:23:41 -0400
From: danmcc@umich.edu (Dan McConnell)
Subject: Ringwood/Starters
From: Anthony Migliore <MIGLIORE@novell.nadn.navy.miL>
>Where can we get Ringwood yeast to brew at home? This yeast is
>usually used at breweries set up by Alan Pugsley. This ale is always
>good, although never much different than the others who use the yeast. I
>have traveled around tasting beer at brewpubs and can ID the yeast
>after one sip. Some of the many brewers who use the English yeast
>are, Wild Goose, Shipyard, Salty Dog, and Gritty Mcduffs all in the North
>East.
I posted the culture ID's for all of the YeastLab yeasts a while back, but
I don't know if this was before or after the English Ale strain was added.
In any case, YeastLab English Ale A09 *is* the Ringwood strain.
If you try a lager in one of the Pugsley influenced Pubs, chances are good
that you will be tasting the results of W34/70.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From: Alex Sessions <ALEXS@RIZZO.COM>
>As I understand it, the main reason for using a yeast starter is to
>increase the number and activity of yeast organisms when pitching, so
>that the desired yeasts will ferment sugars in the wort much more
>quickly than the inevitable few microbrial contaminants, minimizing
>the off-flavors contributed by those bad bugs (OK so far? other
>reasons for yeast starters?).
>So my question is: when you make a yeast starter, aren't you
>culturing those background bad organisms, as well as the desired
>yeast?
A qualified yes....The main reason to make a starter is to provide
sufficient numbers of yeast cells in the main batch so that the
fermentation starts quickly. If you start with a *clean* culture and do
stepwise (10-fold) volume increases, the lag time at each step will be
short allowing the yeast to predominate. The contaminants simply never get
a chance.
Granted, there is a small risk at each step, but if the yeast are very
active, the chance of a bacterial or wild contamination is small if your
procedures are sound.
Yeast produce different metabolic byproducts depending on whether they are
reproducing or fermenting. By underpitching you force the yeast to spend
more time reproducing and consequently the beer will contain a different
metabolic soup than a beer that has been properly pitched. The result is a
different flavor profile. All the more reason to make a big starter (1L
is an underpitch in a 5 gal batch).
DanMcC
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 1995 08:50:03 -0500
From: rich.adam@mayo.edu (Adam Rich)
Subject: larger batch size/ smaller work load
Hello Everyone:
I have a simple question about batch size and brewing efficiency.
The objective is to get more beer produced for the same amount of work using
the same equipment. The simple idea is to increase the OG of the wort,
account for this inrease in the hop schedule, cool and pitch a nice healthy
starter. At bottling time a gallon or more of water could be added thus
increaseing the total volume of beer to bottle while maintaining the desired
alcohol content etc because a higher OG wort had been produced. So, maybe I
could bottle say 7 gallons of beer by merely increaseing the amountof DME
from 6 to 9 pounds, and doing everything else identically? Certainly this
would be advantagious for makeing those special holiday beers when
consumption is at its peak! Is there an obvious reason why this would
dramatically alter the quality? I suspect that I may have trouble with
body, but maybe not if I account for this is my grain bill (I usually do a
partial mash these days) it would work out.
On a related note, why is it bad to boil the wort for more then 60
minutes when makeing an extract-based beer? When makeing lighter ales would
I be well-advised to boil for only 30 minutes? Than I would have to increase
the amount of bittering hops, or else maybe boil the bittering hops
seperately, in a smaller saucepan, in order to allow them to release the
important compounds.
Thanks for any and all inforamtion. I will compile the responces
should they be sent to me directly.
the very best,
Adam Rich
Adam Rich: richa@mayo.edu
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Guggenheim 9, Mayo Foundation
Rochester, MN 55905
507-284-0879 (lab)/ 507-252-8115 (home)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 95 10:06:16 EDT
From: hadleyse@pweh.com
Subject: Maris Otter Malt
In April I brewed a Pale Ale with Maris Otter 2 row pale ale malted
barley from Crisp Maltings in England. I was very impressed with the
results. I achieved a 10% improvement in extraction efficiency due to
the malt alone. Also, I found the flavor to be more complex and
enjoyable than the other British malts I've tried. I purchased the malt
(7 lbs) for the last brew from Liberty Malt in Seattle WA. I want to
buy a 55 lb sack but I don't want to pay to ship it across the country
to CT. Does anyone know of a homebrew shop that carries Maris Otter
Malts in or near CT? Thanks in advance.
Scott Hadley
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 1995 10:11:22 EDT
From: uscgc2r3@ibmmail.com
Subject: Labelling Software
I was trudging through the internet this morning and came across an answer to
Victor's question about beer labelling software. Standard disclaimers apply, I
know nothing about this product but you can order "home labeller lite", the Wine
and Beer edition from:
Projexis Inc.
PO BOX 42
Cumberland, Ontario K4C 1E5
CANADA
(613 833 8370)
projexis@ottawa.net
They've even got a free(?) demo version. It says that the page was last updated
in May of this year. Good luck. Let us know if it's worthwhile.
I also want to vouch for the ammonia soak removal method. In a Packaging
Materials class, I remember hearing that breweries using returnables need labels
that will not sweat off, but will wash off for cleaning/refill so they use
alkalai soluble adhesive that will dissolve in their caustic wash solutions. A
little ammonia in the warm soak water has always worked well for me (but don't
watch them or they will never come off. The best method is to go to another room
and have a cold one).
Wallie Meisner
Wallie Meisner
uscgc2r3@ibmmail.com
(800 334 9481 x-2410)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 95 10:02:06 EDT
From: CGEDEN@NERVM.NERDC.UFL.EDU
Subject: Use of starters
First, thanks to Mutsuo Hoshido for sharing his experiences brewing in
Japan. Its always interesting to hear from our international brewbretheren.
Now, a question about starters. I usually use dry yeast, but recently have
enjoyed the versatility of styles and flavor profiles afforded by liquid
yeasts. Up until now, I've made my starters by adding the contents of an
inflated slap-pack to about 750 ml (ca. 24 oz) of about 1.040 unhopped sterile
wort, then pitching the yeast sediment, but not the starter "beer", after the
yeast settles out in 2-3 days. This time, however, the starter has been very
slow, and is still merrily bubbling through the airlock after 4 days with no
clearing in sight. It smells fine and does not look contaminated. The variety
of yeast is "English" ale, no. 1098. I've had great luck before with London
ale yeast 1028 and the Weihenstephan weizen yeast, but this is my first time
using 1098.
Questions for the Collective Wisdom:
1) When using starters, is it better to pitch settled slurry (sans "beer") or
to pitch the whole solution at high kreusen? How do you time these things so
you can plan on brewing when you want to, rather than being at the mercy of an
agenda set by one-celled organisms?
2) Is 1098 a slow fermenter? Is my starter ruined?
Thanks!
Chris Geden
Gainesville, FL
"Best place to live in the USA, 1995"
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 10:36:07 -0400
From: jucks@cfaft4.harvard.edu (Ken Jucks, ph # 617-496-7580)
Subject: Re: RTP yeasts/Hops Plugs
Geep writes:
>All this talk lately about RTP yeast has peaked my interest. Any more info
>on how to get some outside Mass? Also, I will be in Massachusetts in October
>and would like to know of any shops in the area that might have a stash of
>RTP. (Lowell area or Cape Cod area)
I will see Seth (the person behind the RTP yeast) on Friday. I will tell
him about the interest his yeasts have received on the HBD. He might be
able to tell me when and if his yeasts will be available in other areas.
I do know that the Modern Brewer, now in Somerville MA, carries some of
his yeasts, and they do sell supplies by mail order. Their WWW site
is http://www.shore.net/~modbrew/ , and their phone number is
617-629-0400. I have no connection to this store, other than being a
semi-regular customer.
Ken Jucks
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 1995 10:03:43 -0400
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Priming bottles
CO2 in beer is measured in "volumes". That is, 1 "volume" of CO2 is
the amount of CO2 that would fill a given volume at 1 atmosphere
pressure at 32F (0C). It's very close to 2 grams per liter.
The pressure of dissolved CO2 depends heavily on the temperature (in a
non-linear fashion). The lower the temperature, the lower the
pressure. This is why an extremely cold beer seems flat, because more
of the CO2 stays in solution.
Finally, 4 grams of sugar will ferment to 2 grams of CO2. Thus, to
add 1 volume of CO2 to your beer, you need 4 grams of sugar/liter of
beer, or approximately 76 grams (2.7 ounces) per 5 gallons.
The "standard" 3/4 cup of corn sugar weighs about 4 ounces, adding
about 1.5 volumes of CO2 to the solution. Beer at 60F (racking
temperature?) has about .9 volumes of CO2, so your primed bottles will
develop about 2.4 volumes. At 50F (ale serving temperature), this
gives a pressure (above atmospheric) of about 18PSI. At 40F (typical
'fridge temperature), you get about 12PSI. To get 18PSI at 40F, you
need 3 volumes of CO2. Thus, you should add an additional 1.6 ounces
(0.6 volumes * 2.7 ounces/volume/5gal) of corn sugar.
Note that bottles thus primed are almost guaranteed to gush at higher
temperatures, and that at room temperature the pressure in the bottles
will be close to 40PSI.
=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer@umich.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 95 10:38:49 EDT
From: The flame from your stage has now spread to the floor 06-Sep-1995 1038 -0400 <ferguson@zendia.ENET.dec.com>
Subject: re: 5 Gal GOTT or the 10 gal?
>Date: Tue, 05 Sep 1995 09:45:18 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Dave Riedel <RIEDEL@ios.bc.ca>
>Subject: Gott cooler size...
[...]
>Mash/Lauter tun set-up. My question is: Is the 5 gallon size ok? I'd like
>to minimize the cost and the space requirements. Will the 5 gallon size
>greatly limit the beer types I wish to make (i.e. will high gravity brews
>be impossible?) BTW, I brew 5 gallon batches.
I suggest going with the 10 gal model.
in the future, you will eventually want to brew longer batches.
i can do a 14 gal batch with my 10 gal gott and i still have room
to spare in the gott during mashing/sparging. a 5 gal gott
would be cutting it close and not planningh for future growth.
as for size, yeah, it is bigger, but, you can store lots of stuff
in the gott when you are not using it.
go for the 10 !
jc
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 95 08:34:03 PDT
From: kens@lan.nsc.com (Ken Schroeder)
Subject: Answer Posting: One Solution
In HBD 1821 Bruce complains of questions that go unanswered in the digest.
This is not the bad thing that Bruce suggests. It has been my experience
to receive many answers to each well asked question. Many of these answers
provoke an off line discussion where the quality and volume of information
may be stagering. The volume of answers would swamp the digest and not
allow for the diversity of issues discussed in this medium. I have found,
if a question interests me, I simple request the originator of the question
to copy the responses to me. I have never (at least to my worn out memory)
been turned down on such a request. If you receive the HBD, you can also
receive private email. This approach not only answers the question, it
allows for on going discussion and more bandwidth to ask more questions
to the large body of brewers who subscribe. An effective use of this
communication medium.
Ken Schroeder
Sequoia Brewing
------------------------------
Date: 06 Sep 95 10:30:50 EDT
From: Jay Reeves <73362.600@compuserve.com>
Subject: Poor service from St. Pats
<Warning: griping ahead>
I remember seeing a few post a month or so ago about poor
service from one of the mail order houses (Hoptech I believe).
Well, I'll report another one - St. Patrick's of Texas.
I ordered a 7 gal carboy with the understanding that it would be
shipped the following business day (Monday) which would put it
at my door before the following weekend, which I desperately
needed by then. I stressed this point to the salesperson at the
time. 5 days after the order (Friday) I had not seen the carboy.
When I called St. Pats, the reply was that it was shipped the day
before on Thursday, 4 days after I ordered it and not the
following business day after the order. Needless to say, the
Labor Day brewing weekend was screwed. I got it the day after
Labor Day (Tues.). The sales ticket had "Please ship Monday"
wrote on it.
It seems that these days a lot of the businesses have the
attitude "if you want it, I got it. If you don't, someone else will"
and they think that a few dissatisfied customers won't hurt. This
has never been more wrong because of communication on net.
I hope others continue to post their "poor service" experiences. I
believe that posting these to the digest will eventually let these
businesses know that it really does hurt.
-Jay Reeves
Huntsville, Alabama, USA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 07:51:50 -0600 (MDT)
From: "Gerry Nelson" <GNELSON@acad.cc.whecn.edu>
Subject: labels
Avery makes adhesive-backed full sheets of removable adhesive
(#5455.) Very easy to print labels with a word processor, easy to
stick on, and easy to remove.
Jerry Nelson, gnelson@acad.cc.whecn.edu
Department of Geology, Casper College, Casper, Wyoming
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 95 09:32 EDT
From: vic@iglou.com (Victor Hugo)
Subject: Labeling: a Summary
To the HBD Collective:
Thanks to all who responded to my question concerning labels/label removal.
In keeping with the spirit of shared information I will summarize my
responses (both from e-mail & postings):
The #1 adhesive was WHOLE MILK! A real shock to me. I was also warned that
it needed to be WHOLE MILK because skimmed milk lacked enough of the stuff
(protiens?) to stick the labels. The only draw back mentioned was the loss
of labels when beer was chilled in icewater.
The #2 adhesive was the glue type stick. Apparently this is a bit stouter
than milk but still easily releases in warm soapy water.
Other adhesives mentioned included spray adhesive and water soluable glues.
Several people suggested labeling just the caps since they would be
discarded anyway. The recomendation for labeling here included permenant
marker directly on the cap or the small round labels found in office supply
stores.
Label Removal:
The recommendation here was to use an ammonia and water solution (various
dilutions) and allow the commercially labeled bottles to soak over night.
Label Software:
Several suggestions involving everything from desktop publishing programs to
crayons. Most suggested dividing an 8x11 page into four labels and using
your adhesive of choice.
I have discovered that WP 6.1 (usual disclaimer applies) allows you to print
a grey scale "watermark" in the background. This allows you to text in the
name and other pertinant info about your beer and still have some "nice"
artwork in the background. I am certain that other programs offer this option.
Thanks to everyone who responded. What did we do in the dark ages of BI
(before internet) when information traveled at a snails pace?
I will summarize this thread again, if responses warrant.
Vic Hugo
vic@iglou.com
"save the trails"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 95 14:55:48 est
From: Joseph.Fleming@gsa.gov
Subject: Bits n pieces
Hey All-
Got my new brewing equipment hummin' and have some questions.
Strike Temp woes
Seems my cooler tun (60 qt!) performs less admirably than the norm in
that 170F strike water got me a 143F mash temp (eek!). My next batch I
boosted the strike temp to 178F and all was kosher (at least until the
gelatin is added). Does 180F water denature the either of the a-amylase
or b-amylase enzymes? How bout tannin leeching? I wouldn't ask, but I
broke my hydrometer (d'oh!).
Cookin with Gas
Ulick mentioned that he taps into his gas line & boils on an old water
heater heater. After boilovers messed up my new stove (d'oh!), I am
considering other arragements (i.e. I'm facing kitchen eviction).
1) Anyone have good stove cleaning methods/chemicals/sand blasting
eqipment?
2) Does Ulick's method violate any generally applied codes (i.e. if I
have the gas company inspect the setup will they turn off my supply)?
3) If I am not a good scrounger, how do I get one of these water
heating elements? Are there ways to affix hi-low controls to these?
Should I just get lots of aluminum foil for my stove?
Brewer's Resource Mill
Just got myself one of these jobbies. Anyone wanna write me and swap
gossip about roller settings?
Joe - joseph.fleming@gsa.gov
"Beer, beer, beer." - my wife's musing comment as I tried to apply brewing
as a paradigm to some other topic - ANY other topic.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 95 10:25:00 MST
From: "Fleming, Kirk R., Capt" <FLEMINGKR@afmcfafb.fafb.af.mil>
Subject: Poll: Open vs Closed Fermentation Practices
I'd like to get an idea of the prevalence of the practice of
open vs closed fermentation among readers of this digest.
Please let me know if you:
a) primarily practice open fermentation for the primary phase
b) primarily practice closed fermentation
c) do both routinely for the primary phase
d) feel open is more (or less) prevalent than closed
among your brewing associates
Any other comments on the subject are also solicited, including
typical fermentation times, whether you skim the kraeusen or not,
any taste differences you may have noted between identical
beers brewed using the two techniques, etc.
I'll happily summarize the results of this informal poll and post
to this digest, if you'd be kind enough to respond to me at
flemingk@usa.net. Your response will be treated in strictest
confidence. This request is being posted to both the UK and
US HBDs. Thanks for your help.
KRF Colorado Springs
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 12:55:27 EST5EDT
From: "David Wright" <LSMAIL@osp.emory.edu>
Subject: transfer bottling
Bryan Schwab asked about transferring beer from grolsch type bottles
to regular bottles for a contest. I have the same delema and asked
some knowlegable people and they said to get the beer neer freezing
then slowly pour into the new bottles. This should make the loss of
carbonation negligable. I will be trying this in the next couple of
days and will share the results the day after the contest (Sept. 16).
David Wright
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 09:30:11 -0600
From: Shawn Steele <shawn@aob.org>
Subject: Re: Labels
I have a very simple way of labeling bottles...
1. I create labels on plain paper in any manner (usually laser printer
& a pair of scissors).
2. Put a shallow film of milk in a saucer and immerse the back of each
label in the milk before applying.
This method has some great advantages in that the labels come off very
easily when dunked in water (which happens when they get washed
anyway.) It's also very easy to do.
I'm not terribly certain why it works :-) One of my first thoughts was
"ick, it'll smell," but for some reason it doesn't, even after months
of unrefrigerated storage. I suppose that there might be problems in
more humid or hotter climates, but maybe not.
Labels affixed in this manner should also be easy to de-label in the
event you decide to enter a competition.
- shawn
Shawn Steele
Information Systems Administrator
Association of Brewers (303) 447-0816 x 118 (voice)
736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 (fax)
PO Box 1679 shawn@aob.org (e-mail)
Boulder, CO 80306-1679 info@aob.org (aob info)
U.S.A. http://www.aob.org/aob (web)
Note: When replying to my messages, please include enough of my
message so that I know what you're replying to! :-)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 95 11:37:00 MST
From: "Fleming, Kirk R., Capt" <FLEMINGKR@afmcfafb.fafb.af.mil>
Subject: Yeast Starters/Carboy Headspace/Dual Coil Chillers
Alex asked why starters are helpful when it seems starter production
also increases bacteria populations as well as yeast populations. I
don't offer a definitive answer, but rather request a reasoning check.
Assume you only take reasonable sanitization steps like those employed
in wort handling, etc. I see two different scenarios here: building up
a starter from a very low population slant, and starting with a huge
population such as a jug-o-starter pulled from the fridge.
In the first case I guess an infection is more likely--contaminant
populations closer in size to the yeast cell count might indeed be
able to get a foothold before the yeast can begin reduction or wort
pH and production of alcohol. OTOH, although a starter jug (with
say 200-500 mL of yeast solids in a dense paste) may not be devoid
of contaminants, its low pH and high alcohol content would seem to
be very bacteria-hostile. Pitching such a huge, relatively 'clean'
starter would, I'd think, be able to rapidly turn fertile wort into
a similarly hostile environment.
This (hopefully sound) reasoning also suggests that 'yeast washing'
shouldn't be needed to control an excess of living bacteria in a
yeast farm.
Tim Haby expressed concern over the extra air-filled headspace in a
7 gal carboy (with a 5 gal payload). This issue came up with me
recently when I mentioned brewing a 2.5-3 gal batch of mead in a 5 gal
carboy. The idea caused some concern at the homebrew shop.
Again, a reasoning check. After chilling the wort the brewer is then
going to aerate to the maximum practical extent--an intentional effort
to dissolve as much air (O2, hopefully) as possible in the wort. The
fact that the carboy has an air-filled headspace is immaterial; in
fact, carboy-shakers are depending on it. Compared to aerating with
a pump or by shaking the carboy, the amount of air that will go into
solution by sitting on the wort surface is neglible. IF you were
concerned about the air going into solution (which you are NOT), then
the volume of headspace has no effect at all in this regard--only free
wort surface area does. Finally, for most of the wort's lifetime in
the carboy the headspace will be CO2-purged anyway; it will just take
a few hours longer (guestimate) with the larger-headspace setup.
Greger Olson asked about the 'dual coil' immersion chillers: mine is
'dual concentric'; ie, it's built by first winding a 4-5" diameter
coil. Then, after the last turn is made on the small coil, the tubing
is then wound in an 8-10" outer coil. When you finish winding the
outer coil you end up back at the starting end of the inner coil. I
then pull the inlet and outlet tubes together, binding them to one
another with several short windings of #12 bare copper wire. A plated
compression-to-hose barb fitting on both the inlet and outlet allows
me to connect a washing-machine supply hose to the inlet and a short
section of vinyl tubing to the outlet with no hose clamps.
KRF Colorado Springs / flemingk@usa.net
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1825, 09/07/95
*************************************
-------
